Date:         Mon, 17 Sep 2001 12:30:35 -0400
Reply-To:     The Bus Depot <vanagon@BUSDEPOT.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         The Bus Depot <vanagon@BUSDEPOT.COM>
Subject:      Re: communists  (still way off topic)
In-Reply-To:  <AIEFIGCNNANNIHLNFBPEKEFLDPAA.vanagon@volkswagen.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

> You know what, John, I don't pay a damn cent for my health care.
> Do you know why? Because I have a union job that the employer pays 100%.
> As for all of the countries that have "free" health care, who is really
> paying for it? I bet if you asked people in these countries how much they
> pay in taxes, it would be close to 45% of their income. So you see, it is
> not free. They are still paying for it, but instead of some company with
> shareholders that make a profit too; they are paying it to the government
> and no one but the government is making a profit....
>
> Nothing is free.



But you've both contradicted yourself, and summarized the issue, in your
last sentence. Indeed, nothing is free.  And likewise, free health care is
not magically materializing because of your union.

Companies must make a profit to exist.  They must balance expenses with
revenues, and end up with a profit to survive.  Union labor changes the
dynamic of how these expenses and revenues are allocated, but it neither
negates the basic profit requirement, nor the company's "capitalist"
incentive to maximize that profit at someone else's expense. Be assured that
ultimately, it is not your employer who is paying for most of your "free"
health insurance.  Far from "not paying a damn cent," you are bearing much
of the cost yourself, in that if they were not paying for your health care
they could (for the same net outlay of funds) be paying you a higher hourly
wage.  And your employer's customers are paying in the form of higher prices
on the goods/services that they purchase. (If this renders your employer's
product less competitive in the marketplace, it may even be costing some
other employees their jobs.)  And, if your employer hires non-union help in
other divisions/capacities, they may be getting less money because the
corporation is funding your health care.  Or it is being paid for by
somebody in some other way.  Indeed, many people are paying for your "free"
health insurance, yourself included. The ripple effect is tremendous.

The problem with the present situation is ths issue of who is paying, and
who is receiving.  Can we count on free-enterprise to make sure that the
resource of health care is fairly allocated?  The obvious answer, from
experience, is no. Since private enterprise (including employees in general,
as well as hospitals and insurance companies) is motivated to maximize
profit, and "free" or "reduced-cost" health care costs big money, there is
no incentive to provide it.  Those who have some clout (union workers,
people of middle or better socio-economic status, employees of larger
corperations that qualify for employee group rates and are big enough to
negotiate, etc.) are far more likely to get affordable health insurance than
others. There is no "fairness" here, as the ability to get health insurance
often has nothing to do with the individual's efforts, abilities, health, or
anything besides dumb luck. (For example, my employees cannot get cheap
health insurance simply because they work for business that's too small to
qualify for cheap group rates. Why is this their fault?)  Our current health
care system is not unlike airfare rates, where various factors (resources,
timing, or sheer luck) may cause one person to pay $200 and another to pay
$2000 for identical seats that cost the airline exactly the same amount.
The guy who pays $2000 partially funds the airline's ability to provide the
other guy with a $200 seat. And if he can't come up with $2000, then he
can't go, no matter how dire the need.  That's free enterprise, and no it's
not always fair, but heck, it's just airline tickets.  Well, now we're
talking health care.  Should the same "free market" inequalities apply when
the stakes are quality of life, or even death?

By comparison, so-called "socialized" health care would force all people to
bear equal cost, and receive equal benefit, providing affordable health care
to all. Your right to health care and medication would be determined by
actual need, not a dozen random factors that may be out of your control.

But wait, isn't that "un-American?"  Aren't we a "true capitalist society,"
as you claim?  Of course not. If we were a "true capitalist society," only
the wealthy could afford an education, or a roof over their head if they
became old or sick.  We have always "socialized" those services that we
consider to be the "rights" of every American.  We pay for those services
via taxation, just like in "socialized" countries.  Examples include a
guaranteed grade-school education to every American child, paid for via our
taxes and government-run school systems.  Welfare and Social Security
programs, paid for by taxes and run by our government, to assure a "minimum"
standard of living to all Americans.  And yes, even a rudimentary form of
"socialized medicine" in the form of Medicaid and Medicare. Indeed, all of
these programs are rife with mismanagement and waste, as are most government
programs (and many for-profit ones).  But that doesn't make them any less
neccessary.  For example, most would agree that if our public schools need
improvement, the solution is to make them better, not to close them down.

So the only question is, should health insurance fall under the same
category?  Should we consider universal access to decent, affordable health
care and medicine a similar "right" to be provided to all, or a "luxury" to
be made available only to the more fortunate?   Canada and much of Western
Europe have decided that it is a right, not a luxury, and have funded
Government programs to provide it to all of their citizens.  We are one of
the richest nations in the world, yet we fall far short of these other
countries in this area. Some things are just worth paying more taxes for.
In my opinion, this would be one of them.

My off-topic $.02 ...

- Ron Salmon
  The Bus Depot, Inc.
  (215) 234-VWVW
  www.busdepot.com

_____________________________________________
Toll-Free for Orders Only: 1-866-BUS-DEPOT